Dark-skinned woman & medium-skinned man kissing

Dark-skinned woman & medium-skinned man kissing

This is originally a scene from a Youtube video I saw years ago but could never find again. IF I manage to find it again I’ll add the link here. In case anyone’s wondering why I posed it, I just feel the media does too little to promote love for darker-skinned women ergo this is a step towards correcting that.


Islam’s stance(s) on dating, courtship & relationships



Non-Muslim Westerners seem to have the impression that Islam’s position on relationships is the same as theirs. They find it astonishing that dating (as they define it) is usually seen as forbidden, and many/ most Muslim parents would be angry if they found out their children were dating. On top of that, contemporary* Western culture sees marriage as quaint & nice but oldy-worldy & ultimately unneccesary. Islam, however, is very clear that marriage should be the aim of relationships.


* Note I said contemporary. Only a few decades ago the West believed in marriage just as strongly as the Islamic world traditionally does. But I digress.


Muslims wishing to abide by the faith properly and living in the West are thus often in a dilemma. How do they get married to “good brothers”/ “good sisters” amidst a culture that demotes marriage’s value & promotes extramarital relationships? It too often brings confusion & frustration, and even a degree of alienation from parents because they find this issue unrealistically clear-cut: find someone good (however good is defined), marry them, make babies, done.

Oh, and no dating.


Oh! Finally beta (son) is getting married! About bloody time!



However, it seems most lay Muslims & scholars are misinformed about what Western-style dating actually is. As I used to, they think it means a man & woman meeting one-on-one in private, which is near enough certain to lead to premarital sex – which is unequivocally forbidden. In reality, however, it’s not significantly different to how men & women meet in Islamic matchmaking services. It’s all done in public, and the prospective couple are just talking to see how compatible they are. The only difference with Islamic matchmaking is that physical contact is not allowed until marriage. Western-style dating was exactly the same pre-WW2.


As such there are various ways Muslims can find a good spouse, some traditional, some in response to modern Western ways:


  • Forming networks with same-sex peers (friendships in simpler language) in youth & getting their assistance.
  • Arranged marriage: the parents find someone they think would be suitable for their son/ daughter & with their consent set up a chaperoned meeting between them & their families.

(Important notice: many Westerners have the misconception that arranged = forced. It’s true that forced marriages happen, but that is totally against Islam. The parents have the right to suggest & opine based on their wisdom & experience, as well as find out more about the prospective spouse’s character via other contacts, but it’s up to the person her/himself to make the final call based on the experience they’ve had directly with the prospective)



  • Courtship: somewhat similar to Western-style dating except done in groups, and the couple are “officially” engaged. This is a brief transitional phase between meeting & marriage, and as I said before no physical contact is allowed. 
  • Matrimonial/ matchmaking events: honestly it’s damn near the same as speed-dating but on a bigger scale. It’s 1-on-1 but all in public with hosts present, and prospectives (at least females) have the option of bringing chaperones or not. 
  • Internet matchmaking services: there has been a huge surge in the number of such websites (Muslima, Zawaj, Single Muslim, Salaam Love, etc)
  • Forming opposite-sex friendships: girls & boys talk to each other as friends, which may spark a deep interest between a couple and lead to marriage. The initial friendship may be started at school, college, uni, work, or just out on the street. Probably not in masajid though; most mosques in London don’t allow women in (because they’re usually run by Pakistanis or Bengalis) and those that do have separate parts for women & men. Scholars don’t seem to mention this option at all, but it works in real life. 
  • Matchmaking imams: basically the same as arranged marriage but the imam takes the place of the parents. 
  • Dating, Western-style (as scholars usually understand it – all-on touching, flirting, snogging, just looking for a good time with no strings attached, even premarital sex): this is categorically forbidden. 
  • Fornication: having lovers/ mistresses/ ass on the side for the purpose of sex and nothing else, categorically forbidden. This also includes nikah mut’ah (temporary marriage), which is practised or at least espoused by Shi’a Muslims as far as I understand. 
  • Dating, done 1-on-1 but in public, with the understanding that marriage is the aim & physical contact is off-limits. This is pretty popular and despite scholars has yet to be proven forbidden. 









Was Charles Darwin racist?

Charles Darwin in his youth

This is a question believers in his theory of evolution, both scientists and laypeople alike, like to dismiss as an irrelevant or misleading point. It gets very little if any media attention, far less than the overall theory at hand, ie. that all biological life forms gradually and incrementally changed over the millions of years from a primordial soup (inanimate) to all the different forms that exist now, and more that existed before. Despite how widely referenced and believed his theory is, and the number of times it’s called scientific fact, there is no real evidence to support it. It’s just a theory, but I will restrict myself specifically to the racism therein. When the topic of Darwin’s racism does come up, however, some common defences are regurgitated:


  • Some claim however racist he MIGHT have been, his contemporaries were worse – true but irrelevant because the discussion isn’t about his peers. The way that point is used is to excuse or hide it, as if others’ crimes make one’s own OK. 
  • Some claim that 1- he wasn’t racist at all and 2- the parts of his theory that have been used to support racism were used by other people with their own agendas and interpretations. In other words, taken out of context. This point is false, both 1 & 2, as will be shown below. 
  • Some claim that racism has existed long before Darwin – true but also irrelevant. Darwin didn’t start racism, not even scientific racism, but he did maintain and support it. Whether that was deliberate or not is debatable. 
  • It’s also claimed that he wasn’t racist because he was against slavery. While it is TRUE he was against slavery in theory, he did nothing to oppose it. Back then, as is still the case now, if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem. Furthermore, this doesn’t negate his racism, as will be explained below. 

OK that’s enough. You can stop now.


There is a multitude of evidence to show that he was racist. Not just in his private life, but that racism is also part & parcel of his theory.

  • In Chapter 7 of his book The Descent of Man he describes the “Negro” (ie. ‘black’ African) & the “Australian” (‘black’ Aborigine, not ‘white’) as occupying an intermediary position between gorillas & the “Caucasian” (ie. ‘white’ European). 

(On a point of fact, this is what led to the extermination of the Aboriginal Tasmanians & subsequent digging up of their skulls to be displayed in British museums as proofs of their supposed intermediary position. It was also the inspiration for human zoos, the most famous victim being Ota Benga but that deserves its own post.)

  • In that same chapter he hopes that “Caucasians” will soon evolve into something even higher and break his link to the great apes (& “Negroes” & “Australians”). 

This is the hierarchy Darwin believed in (he didn’t draw this, it was made by Josiah Clark Nott & George Robins Gliddon, 1857). Note how the “Negro’s” jaw is ridiculously elongated, to make us look more ape-like than apes!

  • In that same book he ponders over the concept of a race war, whether it’d be beneficial or not. He then answers yes, because by his theory evolution of the more evolved can only happen if they eliminate their less evolved predecessors. In other words, ethnic cleansing. 
  • In no uncertain terms he referred to Turks & Irish as “lower races”, and he found it hard to believe Fuegians (people of Tierra del Fuego, island just below Chile) were humans at all. 
  • As mentioned above, it is true that he was against slavery. However, that’s because he believed it would hinder our evolution because evolution only works under natural conditions. He basically believed that ‘black’ and other non-‘white’ people should be left to evolve into ‘white’ people in their own good time, thus he still saw us as inferior. Even in this very day the theory of evolution says this, though tries to soften the blow by combining it with the Out of Africa theory, thus mixing truth with falsehood. 

(Another point of fact: in Mein Kampf, Hitler mentioned that Darwin was his inspiration. And with what he espoused, it’s easy to see why.)


Charles Darwin was definitely not the founder of scientific racism but he became one of its greatest proponents. He was also a main reason for the spread of Nazism, fascism, globalised racism & arguably even plain old capitalism.








Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man.


Miley Cyrus’s twerking

This post will be relatively short, as I’d only heard of twerking about 2 days before Miley Cyrus’s VMA performance so I know very little about it. Admittedly I didn’t see the performance, only bits and pieces of it. However, judging from the pictures in the news and on the internet:



I spared myself a whole lot of visual torture. This picture sums it up perfectly for me:


Will Smith & his children Jaden & Willow in the audience. Check out those faces!

Some people who watched it found it disgusting (which it was) but not because it was so hypersexualised. They claimed Miley was trying to act ‘black’. Correction for those numbnuts who said that: she’s acting like a slut, a whigger girl, not ‘black’. ‘Blackness’ is a phenotype not a behavioural pattern, and she doesn’t share it.


And has anyone else noticed this trend female celebrities are going through? They start off their careers as “good” girls then “go bad”. Happened to Rihanna and Beyonce (when she was Sasha Fire), and probably others but as I don’t really pay attention to celebrities I can’t say which.


(Heads-up to Will Smith: if Willow starts with that cack you better set her straight right away!)


I would argue that its purpose is a perpetuation of the premature sexualisation of girls. As Miley has many young fans (much to my surprise!), she has the power to influence how they see themselves and relate to their own femaleness. This influence is inherently negative as it yet again portrays women as men’s playtoys, like the only way we can relate to women is through insensitive indiscriminate unromantic displays of simulated carnality which in real sexual intercourse would likely be very damaging to women’s bodies. Her boyfriend Liam Hemsworth (she has a boyfriend? I am educated!) was so turned off he’s considering ending the relationship.


Then there’s the fact that the man she was winin’ up on was Robin Thicke, Paula Patton’s husband. Disregard the sanctity of traditional relationships for the sake of a show, and the fact that he agreed to it shows he’s a slut too.


She’d better have put him on his last warning if she knows what’s good for her

As if that weren’t bad enough, the racism in Miley’s performance is pretty blatant. This picture:



once again reinforces the stereotype that ‘black’ women are big (therefore supposedly unattractive), and their “big ghetto asses” are the only part of their bodies worth noticing. She was actually slapping it on stage and practically sniffing it, that dirty tramp. Obviously it was that woman’s choice to let herself be used like that; she’s got no scruples and didn’t care about how it would reinforce the Jezebel stereotype. Having said that, though, the performance was Miley’s so she should take the blame.


So to summarise, Miley Cyrus has gone to pot – even further than she already was.


PS. Doesn’t she know how to keep her tongue inside her mouth? For God’s sake!!!

quirky actor, script & story writer and poet spreading insights, old and new, from unconventional sources


Just another WordPress.com site

Modern Monetary Theory: Real Economics

"The economy doesn't work like most people think it works!"

Unlock The Code

quirky actor, script & story writer and poet spreading insights, old and new, from unconventional sources

LandofKam's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

%d bloggers like this: